The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1887-12-15

heoSs - III OoHlllCG Will GuG CUHSJlGu-
tlon. Some very good men have fall
en- into the belief that to close up the
drunkard factories at once, making
all moneys invested therein loss,
would be great injustice We do not
view it from that standpoint. There
IS not an Intelligent doggery-keep"r
in the United States who DOES bot
know that he is engaged in most
disreputab'e, horrible. crinlinal busi-
ness, crime against his God and his
fellow men. His business is to ruin
other men. He does not hesitate to
destroy another nan's business, or
character, or family. He will un-
blushingly roo a man Of all his mon
ey, and VIXEN the victim gets so low
and poor as to be temporarily with
out money, your doggery-keeper will
take his clothes in pawn for liquor,
and send the miserable wretch, shiv-
ering, out into the blast of the coldest
winter night Such cattle to talk
about Constitutional" privileges! As
well might Satan attempt to mount
the battlements Of Heaven upon
snowy Mings, or wave palms over the
uproar of the abode of the damned
These fellows went into this awful
business-not with view to making
an honorable living; not with an hon
est desire to build up the business in-
terests of the country; they went in
to it because it was easier to rob their
fellow-men by this means than to
work for a living. They took all the
risks, knowing the evils Of the busi-
ness-or rather crime To bring up
before the Supreme Court Of this
great Nation an army of bloated
blistered, rotten, conscienceless ruff
fans, whose business it is to mock God
and destroy mankind, and demand
their Constitutional Rights" would
be laughable, were it not so disgust
ing. Here is the way the Supreme
Court of the United States regards
the matter:
WASHINGTON, December 5-A very
important decision, and one likely t(
be far reaching In its consequences
was rendered in the Court to-day in
the so-called Kansas prohibition cas-
| AG Mnpla.. {ha II
| Kansas, and the State of Kansas
against Ziebold and Others The
Judgment of the Court was pronoun.
ced in a long and elaborate opinion by
Mr. Justice Harlan, who said: The
general question in each case is wheth-
er the prohibition statutes Of Kansas
are in conflict with that clause Of the
Fourteenth Amendment which pro.
ides that mo State shall make or en-.
orce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens Of
the United States, nor shall any State
deprive any person Of life, liberty OF
| property without due process of law.
That legislation by State prohibit
ing the manufacture within her lim-
its of Intoxicating liquors, to be there
sold or bartered for general use as
beverage, does not necessarily infringe
any right, privilege or immunity Sc.
cured by the constitution Of United
States is made clear by the decisions
Of this Court, rendered before and
since the adoption Of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
/ It is, however, contended that, al
though the State may prohibit the
manufacture Of Intoxicating liquors
for sale or barter within her limit:
for general use as beverage, no Con.
vention or Legislature has the right
under our form Of government to pro.
hibit any citizen from manufacturing
for his own use or for export or sto.
rage any article of food or drink moi
endapgering or affecting the rights oi
others.
The argument made in support OF
the first branch of this proposition
briefly stated, is: That in the implied
compacts between the State and the
citizen, certain rights are reserved by
the latter which are guaranteed by the
constitutional provisions for the pro-
lection of life, liberty and property
against deprivation without due pro
cess of law, and with which the State
can not interfere; that among those
rights is that of manufacturing fol
ones own use either food or drink
that, while according to the doctrines
of the Commune, the State may con-
troll the tastes, appetites, habits, dress,
food and drink Of the citizen, our sys-
tenn Of government, based upon the
individuality and intelligence Of the
people, does not claim to control him
except as to his conduct to others.
leaving him the sole judge as to all
that only affects himself.
Tt. will be=observed that the PROPOSE
tion and the argument made in sup
port Of it equally concede that the
right to manufacture drink for ones
personal use is subject to the condi-
ton that such. manufacture does not
endanger or affect the rights of 9th
ers. If such manufacture does pre-
judically affect the rights and interests
of the community, it follows from the
very premises stated by the counsel
that society has the power to protect
itself by legislation against the injur-
ious consequences of that business.
As was said in Mum VS.. Illinois (94 U.
S.. 124, while power does not exist
with the whole people to control
rights that are purely and exclusively
private, Government may require
each citizen so to conduct himself and
so to use his own property as not un-
necessarily to injure another.
But by whom or by what authority
is it to be determined whether the
manufacture of particular articles Of
drink, either for general use or for
the personal use of the maker. will
injuriously affect the public? Power
to determine such questions, so as to